Multiculturalism and Citizenship in the Netherlands 102

Igor Boog

Contents Introduction: Multiculturalism and Multicultural Citizenship ...... 1994 Perspectives on National Belonging ...... 1996 National Belonging in the Netherlands: Policies and Debates ...... 1998 Perspectives on Social Equality ...... 2001 Social Equality in the Netherlands: Policies and Debates ...... 2004 Perspectives on Cultural Distinctiveness ...... 2005 Cultural Distinctiveness in the Netherlands: Policies and Debates ...... 2007 Conclusion ...... 2009 Cross-References ...... 2011 References ...... 2011

Abstract In this chapter, it is argued that to understand the current debates about cultural diversity in the Netherlands, several historical developments have to be taken into account. One development is the contradictory conception of the nation-state, which includes inclusive as well as exclusive criteria for national belonging. Another development is the changing pattern of migration, resulting in an increase of cultural diversity in Dutch society. Finally, the debates take place in the context of the human rights revolution since World War II, in which historical hierarchies are being challenged by emphasizing social equality on various grounds, including ethnic background, gender, and sexual orientation. Part of this human rights revolution is the ideology of multiculturalism, which generally stresses liberal values including social cohesion and national belonging, and social equality of all groups in society. The most deﬁning aspect of multiculturalism is the recognition of cultural or religious distinctiveness of ethnic and

I. Boog (*) Institute of Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]

cultural groups in society, which is considered to be essential to achieve social cohesion and social equality. In the 1990s and 2000s, this recognition was increasingly criticized in the Netherlands, with mostly right-wing politicians considering certain norms and values of immigrants, especially Muslims, to be incompatible with the norms and values of Dutch natives. In the 2000s, Dutch parliament debated several proposals to prohibit certain cultural or religious expressions of Muslims in the Netherlands, despite the Dutch interpretation of freedom of religion. Currently, this culturalization of citizenship is still evident, mostly from views and statements of right-wing populist and ultra-orthodox Christian politicians.

Keywords Citizenship · Multicultural citizenship · Multiculturalism · National belonging · Social equality

Introduction: Multiculturalism and Multicultural Citizenship

Diversity in society has become an almost inescapable topic in public, political, and scientific debates in the Netherlands and other Western European countries. These debates often concern cultural and ethnic diversity resulting from immigration since World War II. A central topic in these debates is the cultural distinctiveness of immigrants: whether certain practices, norms, and values of immigrants are compatible with the norms and values of the immigrant receiving societies, a question that in the last three decades has been increasingly asked about Muslim immigrants. An example is the debate about whether Muslim immigrants should be allowed to wear a headscarf in school or at work. Another example is the discussion whether multiple citizenship and transnational ties of immigrants undermine their loyalty to the nation-state. In more general terms, the relevance of cultural boundaries of national belonging is increasingly being discussed. Scholars in the Netherlands refer to this process as a culturalization of citizenship, “in which emotions, feelings, norms and values, symbols and traditions (including religion) come to play a pivotal role in defining what can be expected of a Dutch citizen” (Duyvendak 2011: 81). These debates are accompanied by changing discussions, attitudes, policies, and regulations regarding social equality. Since the 1960s, the Netherlands and many other countries developed a wide range of equality policies and antidiscrimination legislation, following United Nations conventions such as the International Conven- tion on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) which came into force in 1969. Scientific studies and political debates increasingly paid attention to the questions of how to prevent discrimination of and achieve social equality for citizens with various group characteristics, including those with a migrant background. A key concept in the contemporary debates about cultural and ethnic diversity is “multiculturalism.” This concept, in use since the 1960s (Kymlicka 2012: 5), refers 102 Multiculturalism and Citizenship in the Netherlands 1995 to specific responses – policies or ideologies – to diversity in society. While there are many different interpretations of this concept, there are three aspects or values that are considered fundamental by most proponents of multiculturalism. These aspects include national belonging (or social cohesion), social equality, and the recognition of cultural distinctiveness. The importance attached to specifically these values indicates that most proponents of multiculturalism advocate a specific liberal form of multiculturalism (Kymlicka 2012, 2014; Modood 2010). These three aspects are closely related to fundamental debates on citizenship and are therefore by some authors referred to as dimensions of “multicultural citizenship” (Boog 2014; Modood 2010). The first aspect is the importance that is attached to social cohesion and national belonging in society. The question here is whether citizens of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds are recognized as full members of the national group. In diversity debates, it is questioned, for example, whether “integration” of immigrant citizens is possible while simultaneously respecting (elements of) their cultural or religious distinctiveness. This relates to a fundamental issue in debates on citizenship, as the concept of citizenship in modern nation-states always “entails a tension between inclusion and exclusion” of individuals (Bloemraad et al. 2008: 155). The second aspect of multiculturalism is the importance attached to nondiscrimination principles that concern social equality of the various groups in society, not only on grounds of race or ethnic background but also on grounds such as gender and sexual orientation. This, of course, relates to the fact that legal citizenship in Western countries entails the right to equality, which is expressed in regulations and policies regarding equal treatment and nondiscrimination. These first two aspects are closely related to the third and most defining aspect of multiculturalism, which is the recognition of cultural distinctiveness of the various groups in society. Proponents of multiculturalism argue that this recognition of cultural distinctions, but also of other distinctions such as gender and sexual orientation, is essential to achieve social cohesion and equality (Parekh 2000). An important reason for this recognition is, according to these authors, that the state and other institutions may strive for “neutrality” and being “difference-blind” but are always susceptible to an explicit or implicit bias towards the majority group. These aspects and their interrelationships are discussed in more depth in the next sections. The primary focus in this chapter is on the multiculturalism debates in the Netherlands. Before the discussions of these debates below, analytical perspectives will be provided on the concepts used. This chapter is largely based on research carried out in the period 2010–2014, and on courses on “race” and diversity taught between 2015 and 2018 at Leiden University. For a more extensive discussion of the issues covered in this chapter, see Boog (2014). It is important to note that various terms are and have been used in the Nether- lands to describe immigrants and Dutch citizens of various origins. In this chapter, the terms “native Dutch” and “immigrants” or “immigrants and their descendants” will be used. Of course, in practice, many so-called “native Dutch” are also descendants of immigrants. In this chapter, however, following similar definitions in use by Statistics Netherlands (CBS) and in the policies and debates that will be discussed, 1996 I. Boog the term native is taken to mean that both parents are born in the Netherlands, while the term immigrant indicates that at least one parent was born outside the Netherlands.

Perspectives on National Belonging

Individuals who possess the legal status of a nation-state’s citizenship legally belong to this nation-state’s national group. However, citizens of this nation-state can still disagree about who of their fellow citizens fully belongs to their national group, disagreements that potentially have negative effects on social cohesion. An example is the use of the term “foreigners” to describe immigrants and their descendants, even those who have full legal citizenship. Furthermore, in the Netherlands and other Western European countries, discussions about national identity that have flared up since the 2000s show that some citizens are of the opinion that fellow citizens who have a certain immigrant background cannot be fully part of their national group. An example is the use of arguments in which it is claimed that a certain national identity is essentially “Judeo-Christian,” a claim that excludes Muslim citizens from being accepted as a full member of the national group. Importantly, these views on national belonging are also expressed in terms of citizen rights. As will become clear in the next sections, citizens can disagree in their views on to what extent certain citizen rights, such as freedom of religion, should be upheld equally for both “natives” and naturalized immigrants and their descendants. These disagreements about who fully belongs to the national group illustrate that views on belonging are socially constructed and therefore dynamic. In other words, to understand the issues of national belonging and social cohesion as an aspect of responses to immigration and the resulting cultural diversity in a nation-state, the nation itself should be studied as a social construct. (On social construction, see, for example, Brubaker 2004;Vera2006.) Categories such as the nation, ethnicity and race are social constructs that are being reproduced (and thus also changed) by individuals in daily life (Brubaker 2004; Anderson 1991). Research has shown that individuals and groups categorize them- selves and others as part of such categories, a process that is often referred to as social categorization (Tajfel 1981). The daily reproduction of these categories or groups includes the maintenance of group boundaries (Barth 1969) and negotiations about the importance of these boundaries, or criteria, for belonging to a certain group. These social categorizations do not just provide labels for groups. They also have cultural and emotional dimensions, often called stereotypes: expectations and per- ceptions regarding the norms and behavior of individuals who are categorized as member of a certain group. Research has shown that individuals tend to favor their own group over other groups, and that they tend to overestimate both the differences between groups and the homogeneity of groups they do not belong to as well (Brubaker 2004). Importantly, the process of categorization is an intervention; it has effects on people’s lives. These interventions can be useful; categories are essential tools to 102 Multiculturalism and Citizenship in the Netherlands 1997 bring order in social life. But it is also clear that categorization and stereotyping can have unwanted effects, such as discrimination (discussed in the next section), identity conflicts, and a lower sense of belonging (Huynh et al. 2011). More generally, categories can serve, and are constructed, to justify and maintain social hierarchies. History provides an abundance of examples, such as denying women voting rights and the use of racial categories to justify colonialism. Categories have a history of (social) construction, as they are socially being reproduced and changed. Understanding the history of a category is important when analyzing its contemporary uses. Thus, aspects of contemporary Western European discussions and policies regarding multiculturalism and national belonging can be traced back to the “contradictory 19th-century conception of the modern nation-state” (Stolcke 1995: 12). Two criteria for national belonging were, and still are, influential in this conception. One stressing the free choice of individuals to live together as citizens in a nation-state, and the other stressing the importance of all citizens sharing a common ethnic or cultural heritage. The first criterion is inclusive, while the second is an example of an exclusive boundary as it does deny full membership of citizens with a different ethnic or cultural background. In studies of nationalism, a similar distinction is often made between inclusive “civic nationalism” and exclusive “ethnic nationalism” (see Bakke 2000 for a discussion). Several scholars have analyzed the connection between ethnic nationalism and racism, both constructing exclusive boundaries by invoking ideas about common ethnic or racial origins and heritage (Balibar and Wallerstein 1991; Lentin 2004). These ideas about ethnic and racial origins of the nation, a clear example of which is twentieth century Nazism, were influential in the nineteenth century formation of modern nation-states and can be traced back to imperialist colonialism (Arendt 1951; Foucault 1980). While ideas about race and social equality have changed considerably since World War II, the idea that a nation is defined by a common cultural heritage of its citizens – an exclusive boundary – is very much alive in contemporary debates about multiculturalism and national belonging in Western Europe. Culture, norms, and values of immigrants and their descendants are considered by some to be incompatible with those of the immigrant receiving societies. The above mentioned claim about the “Judeo-Christian” essence of (Western European) national identities is a clear example. The contemporary use of such ideas to exclude citizens with a (certain) migration background from being accepted as full members the national group has been compared to the nineteenth century mix of ethnic nationalism and racism. While some authors argue that the contemporary rhetoric of exclusion is to an important extent different from “traditional racism” (e.g., Stolcke 1995), others stress the similarities and the continuity of racism and argue that the category “culture” is replacing the category “race” in reifications of differences between human groups (e.g., Lentin 2000, also see Visweswaran 1998). The contemporary emphasis on the cultural distinctiveness of immigrants in Western Europe is reflected in debates about the integration of immigrants and their descendants. The concept of integration essentially refers to the process of change elicited by migration to a different society. This process consists of various 1998 I. Boog aspects, including changes in immigrants’ educational status and their position in the labor market, and more complex issues such as immigrants’ social relationships with “natives,” discrimination, and real or perceived differences between their norms and values and those of “natives” (Erdal and Oeppen 2013). Governments in Western Europe have developed integration policies, for example, to further equal treatment and equal opportunities for immigrants and their descendants (Penninx 2005). However, in recent years, integration policies in several European countries have been amended to also include knowledge of norms and values of the receiving society. The cultural distinctiveness of immigrants has also been linked to their loyalty to the nation-state. Some authors argue that immigrants’ transnational ties and multiple citizenship can lead to multiple loyalties immigrants might have to their ethnic groups and countries of origin, and that such loyalties can undermine or conflict with their loyalty to the nation-state (e.g., Huntington 2004). However, as other authors point out, every citizen has multiple loyalties (for example to their multina- tional employer, their family) which can potentially conflict with his or her loyalty to the nation-state. As Baron (2009: 1040) suggests, this clash of loyalties does not differ from “the usual conflict of commitments that characterize politics.” Impor- tantly, when the accusation of conflicting loyalties is exclusively directed at immigrants, it creates an exclusive boundary, denying that immigrants can be full members of the national group.

National Belonging in the Netherlands: Policies and Debates

As mentioned in the section “Introduction,” contemporary discussions about multiculturalism started after World War II. This is certainly the case in the Netherlands. While the Netherlands has always been an immigration country, relatively few immigrants settled in the Netherlands between 1850 and 1940. Their number and ethnic and cultural diversity increased again after 1945, as a result of decolonization, the recruitment of labor migrants and their subsequent family reunification in the 1970s and 1980s, and, mostly since the 1980s, asylum migration (Lucassen and Lucassen 2011). The percentage of “individuals with a migration background,” a term used by Statistics Netherlands (CBS) to designate individuals of whom at least one parent has been born outside the Netherlands, increased from 9% of the Dutch population in 1972 to 22.6% in 2017. This percentage includes “individuals with a non-Western migration background” (12.7% of the Dutch population in 2017): those of whom at least one parent was born in Turkey or on the continents of Africa, South America, or Asia (excluding Japan and former colony Indonesia) (CBS Statline). Part of these non-Western immigrants are Muslims, mainly originating from Turkey and Morocco, who constituted around 5% of the Dutch population in 2015 (“De religieuze kaart van Nederland, 2010–2015,” CBS 2016). Since the 1980s, the debates about immigrants and cultural diversity in the Netherlands have become increasingly politicized. In this period, both the national 102 Multiculturalism and Citizenship in the Netherlands 1999 and local governments have developed policies designed to integrate immigrants and their descendants, policies that address national belonging, multiple citizenship, social equality, and cultural distinctiveness. Key developments and changes in these debates and policies will be discussed below (national belonging and multiple citizenship) and in the following sections (social equality and cultural distinctiveness). Before 1980, the Dutch government did not see the need to develop structural policies for immigrant integration. Immigrants from former Dutch colonies were seen as repatriates, and the presence of individuals who since the 1950s came to the Netherlands as labor immigrants – guest workers as they were called then – was seen as temporary. This changed in the 1970s, when it became clear that many labor immigrants wanted to remain in the Netherlands. The national government developed its first integration policy, known as the Ethnic Minorities Policy. The goals of this policy were not limited to equality and participation of immigrants but also included sociocultural emancipation which was considered necessary for the improvement of their socioeconomic position and which could prevent identity conflicts (Penninx 2005). In the late 1980s and the 1990s, this policy was increasingly criticized for including the goal of sociocultural emancipation, and critics called for the focus to be limited to the socioeconomic position of immigrants and their descendants. Consequently, in 1994, the government presented a new national integration policy with “civic integration” as the main goal. It stressed the obligation of all citizens, including immigrants, to learn the Dutch language and acquire basic knowledge of Dutch society. The debates and political discourse changed again around the year 2000. Several authors and politicians claimed that the integration of immigrants had failed. More specifically, they argued that the social cohesion of Dutch society was being threatened because certain norms and values of immigrants and their descendants, especially those of Muslims, are not compatible with those of the “native” Dutch. After the year 2000, these ideas were combined in a political discourse by right-wing populist politician Pim Fortuyn, and important parts of this discourse were appropriated by other political parties (Penninx 2005; Prins 2004). The culturalization of citizenship became mainstream, a process, already referred to in the introduction of this chapter, “in which emotions, feelings, norms and values, symbols and traditions (including religion) come to play a pivotal role in defining what can be expected of a Dutch citizen” (Duyvendak 2011: 81). In other words, exclusive boundaries for national belonging were once again stressed, by emphasizing the idea that the Dutch nation is defined by a common cultural heritage. In the policy document that outlined the once again revised national integration policy in 2003, the government problematized the social and cultural distance between Dutch natives and immigrants and their descendants. The government stressed the importance of not just learning the Dutch language but “basic Dutch norms” as well (Tweede Kamer 2003–2004, Brief Integratiebeleid Nieuwe Stijl, 29,203, nr. 1). Furthermore, to strengthen social cohesion, several politicians thought it necessary to focus on Dutch national identity. Especially politicians on the right of the political spectrum argued that Dutch norms and values had to be protected by 2000 I. Boog recognizing that there is one fundamental Dutch national identity, which is, according to some of those politicians, essentially based on Christian, Jewish, or humanist values. In this context, a national canon of Dutch history was compiled, which became part of school curricula in 2010. The use of this canon has been criticized, however, because it limits the debate on interpretations of Dutch history. Although the authors of the canon have stressed that national identity is a dynamic social construction (WRR 2007), it “just gives one story about what the Netherlands is” (Kremer 2013: 10). In the same period, the use of the term allochthon was debated, a term used to describe Dutch citizens of whom at least one parent was born outside the Nether- lands. This term means “other” or “not from here,” and in 2004, several members of Parliament argued that the term was increasingly used to suggest that those who are designated as such do not fully belong in Dutch society. Since then, several municipalities and Statistics Netherlands (CBS) have decided to stop using the term. However, some politicians on the right of the political spectrum proposed instead to extend the definition and the use of the term. They argued that immigrants’ grandchildren, of whom both parents are born in the Netherlands, should also be designated as allochthon, thereby trying to make the criteria for national belonging more exclusive. The culturalization of Dutch citizenship is also evident from debates on the issue of multiple citizenship. While settled immigrants were provided with easier access to Dutch citizenship in the 1980s and the requirement that applicants for Dutch citizenship renounce their original citizenship was abolished in 1991, Dutch citizenship laws became more restrictive after 1997. Politicians on the right of the political spectrum then doubted the commitment to the Netherlands of immigrants who retained their original citizenship. Once again, immigrants who applied for natural- ization officially had to renounce their original citizenship, unless this was impos- sible, for example, when their countries of origin did not allow such renunciation. In the 2000s, Dutch politicians who opposed multiple citizenship considered it to be a possible symptom of failed integration, which could undermine an immigrants’ loyalty to the nation-state. Interestingly, these debates were mainly focused on Muslim immigrants who held multiple citizenship, indicating that their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds were also assumed to undermine their loyalty to the nation-state (De Hart 2005). Currently (as of 2018), the Dutch government still requires applicants for citizenship to renounce their original citizenship, despite studies by government advisory bodies that denied clear relationships between multiple citizenship on the one hand and integration and loyalty to the nation-state on the other (WRR 2007; ACVZ 2008). Finally, scholars have shown that the discussions about radicalization and terror- ism in the last few decades can contribute to negative views of Muslims and a culturalization of citizenship in general. Such discussions have led to a “popular assumption that Islam is to ‘blame’ for the violence of individuals” and to a binary view of Muslims being either radical or moderate (Brown 2018). This binary view is an example of a singular and therefore misleading view of identity, which can lead to further polarization (Sen 2006). 102 Multiculturalism and Citizenship in the Netherlands 2001

In recent years, the Dutch governments have in their policy documents on integration mostly focused on “civic integration.” The latest policy document published in 2018, for example, mostly stresses the importance of learning the Dutch language and participation on the labor market. However, the culturalization of citizenship is still evident from political and public debates. Politicians representing the PVV (the right-wing populist Party for Freedom), led by parliamentarian Geert Wilders, claim that Islam is a threat to Dutch society, and the SGP (ultra-orthodox Protestant Reformed Political Party) wants to limit manifestations of “cultures and religions that do not belong in Dutch society” (SGP Electoral program of 2012). Furthermore, various statements by Thierry Baudet, leader of the FvD (the right-wing populist Forum for Democracy), suggest that he has an exclusive, ethnic nationalist conception of Dutch national belonging. In an interview in 2015, for example, he said that he wanted Europe to remain “predominantly white and culturally as it is” (Radio AmsterdamFM, September 17, 2015), and in an election meeting on March 8, 2017, he claimed that “our elite is busy diluting [Dutch society] homeopathically” by allowing immigrants and refugees to settle in the Dutch nation- state. As mentioned above, the culturalization of citizenship is not just evident from such claims by right-wing populist or ultra-orthodox politicians. Since the early 2000s, politicians representing other parties have appropriated parts of the culturalization discourse. Stef Blok, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, claimed in thesummerof2018thathedidn’t know of any peaceful multiethnic, multicultural society.Tosome,thiscameasasurprise,asBlok,memberoftheVVD(theright- wing liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy), currently the largest party in Dutch parliament and part of the government coalition, chaired a parlia- mentary research committee that in 2004 concluded that the process of integration of “many immigrants has been fully or at least partially successful” (Blok Com- mission 2004:105).

Perspectives on Social Equality

After World War II, and partly in reaction to it, attitudes regarding social equality changed, as part of what has been described as a human rights revolution (Kymlicka 2012). UNESCO started initiatives aiming at condemning racism by educating people about scientiﬁc insights concerning “race.” In 1965, the United Nations adopted the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). After the ICERD came into force in 1969, many countries, including the Netherlands, developed a wide range of equality policies and antidiscrimination legislation. The concept of “race” was increasingly seen as a social construction rather than as a biological reality. This was reﬂected in equality policies and legislation, in which the race concept is generally used as a legal term that refers to distinctions made in social life on the basis of perceived group characteristics, including skin color and ethnic background. 2002 I. Boog

The debates about multiculturalism that started in the 1960s can also be seen as part of this human rights revolution. Proponents of (liberal) multiculturalism stress the importance of social equality of the various groups in society, not only on grounds of race or ethnic background but also on grounds such as gender and sexual orientation (Kymlicka 2012; Modood 2010). The connection between the issues of national belonging and social equality is clear; discrimination of citizens on the basis of their race, ethnicity, gender, or other for citizenship irrelevant group characteristics implies that these individuals are not being accepted as full citizens or equal members of the national group. To understand the debates about equality policies, it is important to distinguish between two types of equality: formal equality and substantive equality of opportunity. Formal equality refers to the ideal that all persons should be treated equally in equal circumstances, a principle that is laid down in the law of many countries. In the Netherlands, for example, Article 1 of the Constitution stipulates that “All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex, or on any ground whatsoever shall not be permitted.” However, the act of equal treatment does not guarantee equality of opportunity, as the latter also requires equal starting conditions. Unequal starting conditions can be the result of historical processes of discrimination, resulting in disadvantages for certain groups. They can also be the result of processes that are still current, such as the recruiting of new employees through informal social networks to which certain groups do not have equal access – a practice known as nepotism. The concept of equality that includes measures to overcome such limitations and to level the playing field is known as substantive equality of opportunity. These measures are referred to as positive action or affirmative action, and more recently, “diversity policies” (cf. Ahmed 2007). In Western European countries, including the Netherlands, various policies and regulations have been developed to achieve both formal equality and substantive equality of opportunity for all citizens. Specific attention has been and still is paid to disadvantaged groups, including women and migrants with diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. These efforts include policies designed to assist immigrant integration, positive action, diversity policies, and measures and regulations to combat and prevent prejudice and discrimination. Discrimination is the most widely discussed obstacle to social equality. It refers to behavior, actions, policies, or structures which in a specific context might result in a relative disadvantage for members of groups whose group characteristics are irrelevant in that context. As such, discrimination, in a legal sense, can be defined as a prohibited form of unequal treatment. Despite the above mentioned human rights revolution after World War II, empirical studies indicate that discrimination is still prevalent and persistent, even in countries where there is strong support for the principle of formal equality (Bobo and Fox 2003; Pager and Shepherd 2008; Havinga 2002; Andriessen et al. 2012). Several sets of scientific theories address this persistence. (For a more extensive discussion of some of these theories, see Bobo and Fox 2003.) One set of theories is based on research which indicates that discriminatory behavior is not confined to individuals who have an explicit ideology that can be used to justify inequality or 102 Multiculturalism and Citizenship in the Netherlands 2003 discrimination, such as racism or sexism. Unequal treatment is a consequence of social categorization and accompanying stereotypes and prejudice. As described in the previous section, individuals tend to overestimate the differences between social categories and underestimate the differences between individuals within their own social category. This leads to bias which implies, “reacting to a person on the basis of perceived membership in a single human category, ignoring other category member- ships and other personal attributes” and can be described as, “a narrow, potentially erroneous reaction, compared with individuated impressions formed from personal details” (Fiske 2002: 123). Biases underlie stereotypes, prejudice, ethnocentrism, discrimination, and unequal treatment in general. Another set of theories explains discrimination as a consequence of conflicting group interests, where bias originates when people perceive a threat to their own group. This threat can emerge when in the perception of “natives” their jobs are being taken by immigrants, or that traditional values are threatened (Fiske 2002: 127). Moreover, dominant groups among whose members these biases originate, “develop and propagate ideologies that maintain and even legitimize their higher social status” (Bobo and Fox 2003: 323), such as racism and sexism. Bobo and Fox (2003) also discuss how members of majority groups can oppose equality policies on grounds of fairness or individualism, and not because of racist or sexist ideas. Some people, for example, oppose positive action because they think it implies reverse discrimination or because they think the government should not interfere in issues of inequality and discrimination. The persistence of discrimination can also be explained by the accumulation of its effects (Pager and Shepherd 2008: 199) and the fact that it is maintained by feedback effects between social domains (Reskin 2012: 31). A disadvantage in one domain, for example, the level of prosperity of the neighborhood one lives in, can lead to relative disadvantages in other domains, such as education, which in its turn leads to a lower level of income. Moreover, relatively high unemployment rates in a specific group can lead to the negative stereotype that its members are unwilling to work. Discrimination then occurs when, on the basis of this stereotype, employers refrain from employing members of this group. This implies a self-fulfilling prophecy and an accumulation of disadvantage. Such self-fulfilling prophesies show that inequality itself can cause and maintain discrimination and consequently, inequality. Another reason for the limited effectiveness of the equal treatment principle is that it does not directly address the problem of unequal opportunities. Because of this, in various countries, measures for positive action (or affirmative action, as similar measures are called in the United States) have been introduced. These measures include outreach efforts, for example, by advertising a vacancy in such a way that it reaches all groups in society, instead of exclusively using informal networks to recruit employees. Other such measures are used to give preference to a member of a disadvantaged group in application procedures, usually under the condition that his or her qualifications are at least equal to those of other qualified candidates. In recent years, similar policies aimed at leveling the playing field and creating equal opportunities (in equal circumstances) are often referred to as “diversity policies” (Ahmed 2007). 2004 I. Boog

Social Equality in the Netherlands: Policies and Debates

Considering the extent of the Dutch equality policies and regulations, the Nether- lands has been called “Europe’s champion of anti-discrimination policy” (Joppke 2007: 260). And indeed, the Netherlands has developed a wide range of such policies, with the backing of wide political support across the political spectrum (Blok Commission 2004). Following the Dutch acceptance of the International Convention on the Elim- ination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD, see above), in 1971, the Dutch Penal Code was adapted to include specific provisions against racial discrimination. In 1983, Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution was adapted to include the prohibition of discrimination. This chapter was elaborated in more detail in the Equal Treatment Act (ETA) of 1994, by which various forms of discrimination in various social domains were prohibited. The regulations that have been developed did not only concern social equality of ethnic and cultural minorities but also social equality on grounds such as gender, sexual orientation, age, and disability. Apart from the development of legislation, since the 1980s, equality policies have been developed by the national and local governments and by various organizations as well. As mentioned in the previous section, one of the goals of the national integration policy in the 1980s was social equality, and discrimination was considered to be a main obstacle to integration. To prevent (by creating awareness) and combat discrimination, codes of conduct in organizations have been established in various sectors, and the national government adopted a law in 2010 that requires all municipalities to provide their residents with access to a local office that is able to handle complaints of discrimination. In addition, the Dutch government, municipalities, and organizations have implemented a limited range of measures for positive action. Between 1994 and 2003, for example, organizations were obliged to publicly monitor the representation of ethnic minorities among their employees. However, one of the most widely discussed of these measures is preferential treatment, which is legally allowed for women, ethnic minorities, and the disabled. This means that preference can be given to an applicant (for example, for a job or a promotion) who belongs to one of these groups but only when it is clear that this group is in a disadvantaged position in the specific application procedure and only when the applicants’ qualifications are at least equal to those of other qualified candidates. These measures for positive action have been and still are controversial. Many employers doubt the beneficial effects and considered preferential treatment to be unfair. Members of ethnic minority groups fear the risk of stigmatization; they did not want to be known as the employee who got the job because of his or her ethnic background (Glastra et al. 1998; Schaafsma 2006). Since the early 2000s, no nationwide measures for positive action have been implemented. However, some organizations have developed the so-called “diversity policies” with the same goals: actively promoting the representation of various groups in organizations, to further the ideal of social equality (cf. Ahmed 2007). 102 Multiculturalism and Citizenship in the Netherlands 2005

Despite this development of legislation and policies, the problem of inequality is persistent. While statistics show that immigrants and their descendants are making clear progress in education and on the labor market, their unemployment rate remains disproportionally high. Research indicates that this is at least partly caused by discrimination (Andriessen et al. 2012). Apart from the explanations for the persistence of discrimination discussed in the first part of this section, research in the Netherlands has shown that the effectiveness of the existing antidiscrimination legislation is limited (Havinga 2002). One reason is that the enforcement of this legislation depends principally on individuals who feel discriminated against to take action. However, victims of discrimination are sometimes reluctant to step forward for fear of escalation or retaliation (cf. Sechrist et al. 2004). Research also shows that some individuals do not recognize or do not want to admit that they are being discriminated against (Andriessen et al. 2007; Crosby et al. 2003), or, instead of lodging a complaint, they adapt their behavior to avoid further discrimination (Andriessen et al. 2007). The difficulty in overcoming inequality and discrimination is just one of the indications that the integration of immigrants and their descendants is a process that takes time. The fact that integration is a process was clearly recognized by the already mentioned research committee established by the Dutch parliament to investigate the effects of the national integration policies in the beginning of the 2000s. In its findings, published in 2004, the socioeconomic progress of immigrants and their descendants was recognized, and it was concluded that the integration of “many immigrants has been fully or at least partially successful” (Blok Commission 2004: 105). However, those politicians who claimed that integration had failed (see above), criticized the commission for not paying enough attention to the alleged problematic norms and values of (specifically Muslim) immigrants (Duyvendak and Scholten 2012). The mainstreaming of the culturalization of citizenship around the year 2000 appears not to have had much direct effect on the wide political support for antidiscrimination efforts. Only a few right-wing populist politicians, including Fortuyn and Wilders, have called for the abolition of Article 1 of the Constitution, essentially because they claimed that they were prevented from criticizing Islam by the principle of equal treatment (as reported in the Dutch daily “De Volkskrant” on February 9, 2002, and March 21, 2006). On the other hand, proponents of multiculturalism would argue that the culturalization of citizenship can hinder social equality, for example, by causing bias and discrimination (see above). In the next section, the culturalization of citizenship will be discussed in more detail.

Perspectives on Cultural Distinctiveness

The contemporary debates about multiculturalism that started in the 1960s are grounded in the above described human rights revolution after World War II (Kymlicka 2012). The most defining aspect of contemporary multiculturalism is the recognition of (cultural) distinctiveness of the various groups in society. Without 2006 I. Boog this recognition, proponents of multiculturalism argue, it is not possible to achieve social cohesion and social equality for all groups in society (Parekh 2000). A Muslim citizen, for example, might not be accepted as a full member of the national group when it is claimed that the national group is defined by a “Judeo-Christian” heritage. Furthermore, when a citizen is denied employment because she is wearing an Islamic headscarf, a cultural and religious distinction, this can amount to discrimination. In short, while organizations and institutions, including the state, may strive for neutrality and being “difference-blind,” they are always susceptible to an explicit or implicit bias towards the majority group. Opponents of multiculturalism, however, argue that the recognition of cultural distinctiveness can hinder immigrants’ integration or warn that a formal recognition is incompatible with the neutrality of the state. Contemporary debates on cultural distinctiveness, in the Netherlands but also in other Western European countries, primarily concern religious practices, norms, and values of Muslim immigrants and their descendants (Maliepaard and Phalet 2012). Therefore, the discussion of the regulations, debates, and views on this subject in Dutch society will focus on the perceived incompatibility between Dutch norms and values and the norms and values embraced by Muslim immigrants. The most discussed argument against multiculturalism is that the recognition of cultural (or religious) distinctiveness hinders immigrant integration. Opponents of multiculturalism claim that this recognition does not incentivize immigrants and their descendants to learn the language of the host country or to develop interethnic contacts (e.g., Koopmans et al. 2005), that it prevents them from developing a sense of national belonging (e.g., Barry 2002) or that it can undermine their loyalty to the nation-state (see above). Furthermore, multiculturalism is seen as incompatible with the ideal of social equality, as it can lead to the preservation of certain immigrants’ norms and values which encourage the unequal treatment of women or individuals who do not identify as heterosexual. More generally, it is argued that recognition of cultural distinctiveness can lead to an emphasis of differences and even to a reification of cultural or religious groups, which can result in segregation, conflicts, and discrimination (e.g., Barry 2002). However, other authors have pointed out that it is often unclear how these opponents define “multiculturalism” (Kymlicka 2012, 2014; Pakulski and Markowski 2014). In the Netherlands, for example, opponents have criticized policies which they label “multicultural,” even though these policies clearly did not fit the qualification (Duyvendak and Scholten 2012). The criticism of opponents often appears to be directed at a caricaturish model of multiculturalism (Kymlicka 2012) which does not imply the recognition of cultural distinctiveness but rather the preservation of cultural identities. Most multicultural policies can, however, be characterized as liberal, implying recognition of cultural distinctiveness (Kymlicka 2014). Where an emphasis on the preservation of cultural identities can understand- ably lead to concerns about essentializing identities, obstacles to integration, and a process of segregation (for a discussion, see Kymlicka 2014), the recognition of cultural distinctiveness does not preclude cultural change or the adherence to legal principles of equal treatment and is necessary to achieve social cohesion and citizen 102 Multiculturalism and Citizenship in the Netherlands 2007 equality, as the examples in the beginning of this section illustrate. In the overview of the political debates in the Netherlands below, the meaning and possible implemen- tation of the recognition of cultural or religious distinctiveness will be discussed in more detail. Debates about multiculturalism do not only suffer unclear definitions or the use of caricaturish models. They are also mostly theoretical and hypothetical. So far, there seems to be no strong empirical evidence for the hypothesis that multicultural policies hinder the process of social and political inclusion and political engagement of immigrants (Wright and Bloemraad 2012). This is not surprising, as the process of immigrant integration is influenced by a wide range of factors, government policies being just one element among many. This situation complicates empirical compar- isons between the effects of policies which are multicultural and policies which are not.

Cultural Distinctiveness in the Netherlands: Policies and Debates

As mentioned, the debates on multiculturalism in the Netherlands have in the last decades increasingly concentrated on cultural and religious practices of Muslim immigrants and their descendants. Proponents of multiculturalism argue for a com- bination of social equality and recognition of cultural and religious distinctiveness, while opponents of multiculturalism often argue for prohibiting certain religious practices or manifestations. These debates take place in a legal context: both freedom of religion and freedom of education are enshrined in the Dutch Constitution. Where freedom of religion implies the legal protection of the observance of religious practices and expressions of religious convictions, the Dutch principle of freedom of education guarantees denominational schools the same funding conditions, rights, and duties as public secular schools. The latter freedom is an example of the Dutch system of neutrality of the state in religious affairs, or, in other words, church-state relations. In this system, anyone is allowed to express his or her religious identity in the public sphere, and every citizen enjoys equal rights to obtain state support for religious and cultural activities (Shadid and Van Koningsveld 1995). Therefore, it can be argued that the Dutch state neutrality implies formal recognition of religious and cultural distinctiveness. As discussed in the above section about national belonging, the cultural or religious distinctiveness of immigrants and their descendants was not seen as an obstacle to integration in the first national integration policies the Dutch government devised in the 1980s. Rather, sociocultural emancipation was considered to have positive effects on the integration process. Much later, in the debates about the perceived failure of multiculturalism that started in the 1990s, it has been claimed that the integration policies of the 1980s had failed because these policies empha- sized the importance of the preservation of the cultural identities of immigrants, resulting in segregation and unsurmountable differences between groups with conflicting norms and values. However, this criticism is not correct. The national 2008 I. Boog integration policies in the 1980s were based on the assumption that the recognition of cultural identities is necessary to achieve social cohesion and social equality (cf. Duyvendak and Scholten 2012; Vink 2007). Moreover, these integration policies were implemented in a context of Dutch pillarization, a development between the 1900s and 1970s in which secular and religious groups established their own institutions, including political parties and schools, with the support of the national government (Duyvendak and Scholten 2011). Thus, a process started in which existing rights, such as the freedom of religion and freedom of education, were extended to religious and cultural immigrant groups. Where, for example, Dutch Christians had the right to build churches and Christian schools with government support, Dutch Muslims obtained equal rights to build mosques and Muslim schools. In collective labor agreements, provisions were included to give Muslim employees the right to ask and receive for paid leave to observe the two main Islamic holidays, similar to long standing provisions regarding Christian holidays (Shadid and Van Koningsveld 2008). This focus on sociocultural emancipation was increasingly criticized during the 1990s, and the Dutch government shifted the focus to “civic integration” in the new integration policy of 1994. The debates continued, however, with opponents of the recognition of cultural and religious distinctiveness of immigrants arguing that this recognition would hinder the integration process. The political debates entered a new phase around the year 2000, as described above. Opponents of the recognition of cultural distinctiveness argued that immigrant integration and multiculturalism had failed and claimed that the norms and values of the Dutch “natives” are incompatible with norms and values of immigrants and their descendants, especially those of Muslims. These arguments became part of a political discourse that was appropriated by several politicians and political parties across the political spectrum. Members of parliament frequently debated religious practices, norms, and values of Muslim immigrants and their descendants, including the Islamic headscarf, ritual slaughter, and the refusal of some Muslims to shake hands with individuals of another gender. Some parliamentarians, for example, argued that the principle of state neutrality implies that public officials in certain functions should not display their religious affiliation (Lettinga and Saharso 2012). Still, the majority of parliament members were of the opinion that a prohibition of wearing an Islamic headscarf by employees and pupils in public schools was not warranted by the principle of state neutrality. However, this discussion did lead in 2007 to the prohibition of displaying religious, political, or other affiliations for police officers. The latter prohibition has in recent years once again become subject of discussion, in the context of policies that have been implemented to increase diversity in the police force. The debates did not only concern interpretations of state neutrality but also the norm of gender equality. The Islamic headscarf was increasingly being discussed in terms of Islamic norms and values and whether these conflict with the emancipation of women. Those who considered the headscarf as a symbol of unequal treatment of women often assume that Muslim women do not have a free choice in whether or not to wear it and therefore argued that it should be banned. Others, however, argued that 102 Multiculturalism and Citizenship in the Netherlands 2009 emancipation is the way to gender equality and not a ban on religious dress (Lettinga and Saharso 2012). The political debates in the Netherlands about the cultural and religious distinctiveness of Muslim immigrants and their descendants appear to have peaked in the years 2004–2006. Since then, this issue is barely mentioned in the Dutch governments’ policy documents on immigrant integration. In its policy document on integration published in 2011, the government stressed that the right of freedom of religion also applies for Muslim citizens, and, as mentioned, the most recent integration policy document, published in 2018, mostly focuses on civic integration and participation in society. (For a more extensive analysis of Dutch political and public views on the issue of religious distinctiveness, see Boog 2014.) This does not mean, however, that there is consensus about the issue. As of 2018, some politicians continue arguing that cultural or religious manifestations and expressions of Muslim citizens do not belong in Dutch society. Most of these politicians represent one of two political parties: the PVV (right-wing populist Party for Freedom) led by parliamentarian Geert Wilders and the SGP (ultra-orthodox Protestant Reformed Political Party). Currently (as of 2018), these parties have respectively 20 and 3 seats in the Dutch parliament, out of 150 total seats. The PVV claims that Islam is a threat to Dutch society and calls for the ban of various religious expressions, including the Quran and the building of mosques (PVV, electoral program of 2012). The SGP also wants to ban the construction of mosques and wants to limit “cultures and religions that do not belong in Dutch society” (SGP, electoral program of 2012). These proposals are clearly incompatible with the rights of freedom of religion, but also with the non-discrimination principles in the Dutch law, as these parties do not propose similar bans on expressions of other religions. While the FvD (Forum for Democracy, two seats in Dutch parliament), the other right-wing populist party in Dutch Parliament, appears to respect these rights, it does argue that the norms and values of Muslim immigrants and their descendants conflict with core values in the Dutch society, as is evident from the official views published on the FvD-website. Moreover, as discussed in the section on national belonging, statements by FvD-leader Baudet suggest that he has an exclusive, ethnic nationalist conception of Dutch national belonging.

Conclusion

In this chapter, it is argued that to understand the current debates about cultural and ethnic diversity in the Netherlands (and other Western European countries), several historical developments have to be taken into account. One relevant development is that of the conception of the nation-state in Western Europe since the nineteenth century. This conception is contradictory as it includes inclusive – civic – as well as exclusive – ethnic or cultural – criteria for national belonging (Stolcke 1995). Another development is the changing pattern of migration since World War II. While The Netherlands has always been an immigration country, relatively few immigrants settled in the Netherlands between 1850 and 1940. Their number and 2010 I. Boog ethnic and cultural diversity grew again after 1945, increasing diversity in Dutch society. And importantly, the diversity debates take place in the context of a developing human rights revolution that started after World War II (Kymlicka 2012). In this revolution, historical hierarchies are being challenged by ideologies of social equality and nondiscrimination, and policies and regulations have been and still are being developed to achieve social equality on grounds such as gender, ethnic background, and sexual orientation. A central topic in contemporary diversity debates is the cultural and religious distinctiveness of immigrants and their descendants; whether certain practices, norms and values of immigrants are compatible with the norms and values of the immigrant receiving societies, a question that in the last three decades has been increasingly asked about Muslim immigrants. In other words, the relevance of cultural – more exclusive – boundaries of national belonging is increasingly being discussed. Scholars in the Netherlands refer to this process as a culturalization of citizenship, “in which emotions, feelings, norms and values, symbols and traditions (including religion) come to play a pivotal role in defining what can be expected of a Dutch citizen” (Duyvendak 2011: 81). A key concept in these debates is multiculturalism, a concept that refers to specific responses to diversity in society that are grounded in the aforementioned human rights revolution. While many interpretations of this concept are in use, most proponents agree on three fundamental values or aspects that emphasize the liberal character of multiculturalism: national belonging or social cohesion, social equality, and the recognition of cultural or religious distinctiveness. These values are closely related to fundamental debates on citizenship, as they refer to citizen rights such as the right of equal treatment and the right of freedom of religion, and also to the issue of the tension between inclusion and exclusion that the concept of citizenship entails (cf. Bloemraad et al. 2008). In the Netherlands, the first national policies for the integration of immigrants and their descendants were developed and implemented in the 1980s. The goals of these policies included participation in society and social equality. The policy goal of social equality for immigrants and their descendants was and is part of a larger development of policies and regulations to achieve social equality on grounds that include ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, age, and disability. To this end, the Dutch Constitution was amended, provisions have been included in penal and civil law, and various policy measures have been implemented, including codes of conduct in organizations and a nationwide system of offices that can handle discrimination complaints. Apart from social equality, the Dutch integration policies of the 1980s were also meant to achieve sociocultural emancipation of the culturally diverse groups of immigrants and their descendants. This was considered necessary to achieve social cohesion and social equality. Thus, existing rights, such as the freedom of religion and freedom of education, were extended to religious and cultural immigrant groups. Where, for example, Dutch Christians had the right to build churches and Christian schools with government support, Dutch Muslims obtained equal rights to build 102 Multiculturalism and Citizenship in the Netherlands 2011 mosques and Muslim schools. Furthermore, given the legal nondiscrimination principles and the Dutch interpretation of freedom of religion, it was clear that the unequal treatment of, for example, an employee because she is wearing an Islamic headscarf, would in most cases amount to discrimination. However, the political debates about the sociocultural emancipation of immigrants and their descendants, and especially of Muslims, became heavily politicized in the 1990s and 2000s. Despite the fact that the process of socioeconomic integration of immigrants and their descendants was successfully progressing (as statistics clearly showed), politicians on the right of the political spectrum claimed that integration was failing. Their argument was that the goals of social equality and social cohesion were threatened by the cultural and religious distinctiveness of immigrants. More specifically, they argued that certain norms and values of Muslim citizens were incompatible with those in Dutch society. Right-wing populist politician Pim Fortuyn combined these ideas in a political discourse, parts of which were appropriated by other political parties in the 2000s. Religious practices, norms, and values of Muslim immigrants and descendants were frequently debated in Dutch parliament. While the antidiscrimination efforts continued to enjoy wide political support, parliamentarians did debate possibilities to prohibit certain Islamic practices, including the wearing of the headscarf. Some politicians, mostly on the right of the political spectrum, considered the Islamic headscarf to be a symbol of unequal treatment of women and therefore argued that it should be prohibited. Others argued, however, that emancipation, and not a ban on religious dress, is the way to gender equality. Moreover, a prohibition of religious expressions such as the Islamic headscarf would in many cases violate the Dutch interpretation of freedom of religion. These discussions appeared to have peaked in the years 2004 and 2006. Recently (as of 2018), the Dutch government mostly focuses on civic integration of immigrants and their descendants: participation in society and learning the Dutch language. However, the culturalization of citizenship is still evident from public debates and from the views and statements of various politicians. The right-wing populist PVV and the ultra-orthodox SGP still want to ban Islamic expressions and manifestations from Dutch society, and statements by FvD-leader Thierry Baudet suggest clearly that he has an exclusive, ethnic nationalist conception of Dutch national belonging.

Cross-References

▶ Immigration Policy and Left-Right Politics in Western Europe ▶ Race and Racism: Some Salient Issues

References

ACVZ (2008) Nederlanderschap in een onbegrensde wereld. English edition: Dutch nationality in a world without frontiers. ACVZ, Den Haag 2012 I. Boog

Ahmed S (2007) The language of diversity. Ethn Racial Stud 30(2):235–256 Anderson BR (1991) Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, revised and extended edn. Verso, London Andriessen I, Dagevos J, Nievers E, Boog I (2007) Discriminatiemonitor niet-westerse allochtonen op de arbeidsmarkt 2007. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau/Art.1, Den Haag/Rotterdam Andriessen I, Nievers E, Dagevos J (2012) Op achterstand. Discriminatie van niet-westerse migranten op de arbeidsmarkt. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, Den Haag Arendt H (1973 [1951]) The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovic, New York Bakke E (2000) How voluntary is national identity? Revised version of a conference paper presented at the 8th national political science conference, Tromsø Balibar E, Wallerstein I (1991) Race, nation, class: ambiguous identities. Verso, London Baron IZ (2009) The problem of dual loyalty. Can J Polit Sci 42(4):1025–1044 Barry B (2002) Culture and equality: an egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Barth F (1969) Introduction. In: Barth F (ed) Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of culture difference. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo Bloemraad I, Korteweg A, Yurdakul G (2008) Citizenship and immigration: multiculturalism, assimilation and challenges to the nation-state. Annu Rev Sociol 34:153–179 Blok Commission (2004) Bruggen bouwen. Eindrapport van de Tijdelijke Parlementaire Onderzoekscommissie Integratiebeleid. SDU, Den Haag Bobo LD, Fox C (2003) Race, racism, and discrimination: bridging problems, methods and theory in social psychological research. Soc Psychol Q 66(4):319–332 Boog I (2014) Multiculturalism and multicultural citizenship: public views on national belonging, equality and cultural distinctiveness in the Netherlands. PhD dissertation, Leiden University, Leiden Brown K (2018) Introduction: radicalisation and securitisation of Muslims in Europe. J Muslims Eur 7(2):139–145 Brubaker R (2004) Ethnicity as cognition. Theory Soc 33(1):31–64 Crosby FJ, Iyer A, Clayton S, Downing R (2003) Affirmative action: psychological data and the policy debates. Am Psychol 58(2):93–115 De Hart B (2005) Het probleem van dubbele nationaliteit. Politieke en mediadebatten na de moord op Theo van Gogh. Migrantenstudies 21(4):224–238 Duyvendak JW (2011) Feeling at home in the nation. Understanding Dutch nostalgia. In: Harbers H (ed) Strangeness and familiarity. Global unity and diversity in human rights and democracy. Proceedings international conference Groningen, The Netherlands, FORUM/University of Groningen, Utrecht, 21–22 October 2010 Duyvendak JW, Scholten P (2011) Beyond the Dutch “multicultural model”. The coproduction of integration policy frames in the Netherlands. Int Migr Integr 12(3):331–348 Duyvendak JW, Scholten P (2012) Deconstructing the Dutch multicultural model: a frame perspective on Dutch immigrant integration policymaking. Comp Eur Polit 10(3):266–282 Erdal MB, Oeppen C (2013) Migrant balancing acts: understanding the interactions between integration and transnationalism. J Ethn Migr Stud 39(6):867–884 Fiske ST (2002) What we know about bias and intergroup conflict. The problem of the century. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 11(4):123–128 Foucault M (1980) The history of sexuality, vol 1. Vintage, New York Glastra F, Schedler P, Kats E (1998) Employment equity policies in Canada and the Netherlands: enhancing minority employment between public controversy and market initiative. Policy Polit 26 (2):163–176 Havinga T (2002) The effects and limits of anti-discrimination law in the Netherlands. Int J Sociol Law 30(1):75–90 Huntington SP (2004) Who are we? The challenges to America’s national identity. Simon & Schuster, New York Huynh Q, Devos T, Smalarz L (2011) Perpetual foreigner in one’s own land: potential implications for identity and psychological adjustment. J Soc Clin Psychol 30(2):133–162 102 Multiculturalism and Citizenship in the Netherlands 2013

Joppke C (2007) Transformations of immigrant integration: civic integration and antidiscrimination in the Netherlands, France, and Germany. World Polit 59(2):243–273 Koopmans R, Statham P, Giugni M, Passy F (2005) Contested citizenship: immigration and cultural diversity in Europe. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Kremer M (2013) The Netherlands. From national identity to plural identifications. Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC Kymlicka W (2012) Multiculturalism. Success, failure, and the future. Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC Kymlicka W (2014) The essentialist critique of multiculturalism: theories, policies, ethos. EUI working paper RSCAS 2014/59, European University Institute, Fiesole Lentin A (2000) ‘Race’, racism and anti-racism: challenging contemporary classifications. Soc Identities 6(1):91–106 Lentin A (2004) Racial states, anti-racist responses. Picking holes in ‘culture’ and ‘human rights’. Eur J Soc Theory 7(4):427–443 Lettinga D, Saharso S (2012) The political debates on the veil in France and the Netherlands: reflecting national integration models? Comp Eur Polit 10(3):319–336 Lucassen L, Lucassen J (2011) Winnaars en verliezers. Een nuchtere balans van vijfhonderd jaar immigratie. Bert Bakker, Amsterdam Maliepaard M, Phalet K (2012) Social integration and religious identity expression among Dutch Muslims: the role of minority and majority group contact. Soc Psychol Q 75(2):131–149 Modood T (2010) Multicultural citizenship and Muslim identity politics. Interventions 12(2): 157–170 Pager D, Shepherd H (2008) The sociology of discrimination: racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annu Rev Sociol 34:181–209 Pakulski J, Markowski S (2014) Globalisation, immigration and multiculturalism – the European and Australian experiences. J Sociol 50(1):3–9 Parekh B (2000) Rethinking multiculturalism. Cultural diversity and political theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Penninx R (2005) Bridges between research and policy? The case of post-war immigration and integration policies in the Netherlands. Int J Multicul Soc 7(1):33–48 Prins B (2004) Voorbij de onschuld. Het debat over de multiculturele samenleving. Herziene versie. Van Gennep, Amsterdam Reskin B (2012) The race discrimination system. Annu Rev Sociol 38:17–35 Schaafsma J (2006) Ethnic diversity at work. Diversity attitudes and experiences in Dutch organi- sations. Aksant, Amsterdam Sechrist GB, Swim JK, Stangor C (2004) When do the stigmatized make attributions to discrimination occurring to the self and others? The roles of self-presentation and need for control. J Pers Soc Psychol 87(1):111–122 Sen A (2006) Identity and violence: the illusion of destiny. Issues of our time. W.W. Norton & Co, New York Shadid WA, Van Koningsveld PS (1995) De mythe van het islamitische gevaar. Hindernissen bij integratie. Kok Pharos, Kampen Shadid WA, Van Koningsveld PS (2008) Islam in Nederland en België. Peeters, Leuven Stolcke V (1995) Talking culture: new boundaries, new rhetorics of exclusion in Europe. Curr Anthropol 36(1):1–24 Tajfel H (1981) Human groups and social categories. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Vera H (2006) Rebuilding a classic: the social construction of reality at 50. Cult Sociol 10(1):3–20 Vink M (2007) Dutch multiculturalism: beyond the pillarization myth. Polit Stud Rev 5(3):337–350 Visweswaran K (1998) Race and the culture of anthropology. Am Anthropol 100(1):70–83 Wright M, Bloemraad E (2012) Is there a trade-off between multiculturalism and socio-political integration? Policy regimes and immigrant incorporation in comparative perspective. Perspect Polit 10(1):77–95 WRR (2007) Identificatie met Nederland. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam